So.. I have finally migrated to the blog software I personally like very much - WordPress.My new blog is at http://sandeep.wordpress.com.My feedburner feed has not changed, so it should automatically be working with the new site.
Read more!

I read this article, which quotes a speech given by NR Narayanamurthy, where he talks about what to do about India's education infrastructure.

I could'nt help but notice, how his view is clouded by the apparent panacea of Indian IT industry. I believe what he says is wrong. Narayanamurthy talks about the need to liberalise (a weakly clouded reference to privatise education) Indian education infrastructure. Well, if that is implemented exactly as the US does, we would be heading towards a disaster which would be borne by individual families.I belive that everyone should be entitled to college education - even though she may turn out to be a future beauty queen, rather than a Ph.D. in nuclear physics (although she may play one in the movies!!). College education is not just about getting the skills required to create nanotech microchips, but also about personal empowerment. It is the way that people, and especially women, enter a crucible to hone their opinions, ideas and goals. I believe it to be the very basis of a growing democracy - free of dogmatic opinions shaped by mob behavior and more of individualistic perceptions.Harvard University has a corpus in excess of 26 billion dollars - while the average student debt has increased from 160 dollars per month to 210 dollars per month.Something wrong with this picture?The US Govt is cutting its aid budget which would have otherwise benefited students. But what is the root cause for the govt. having to aid students - profit making colleges.

Let me not be misunderstood - I'm completely in favor of paying professors very,very high salaries to retain them. Hell, I come from a place where I was fortunate to study under some of the best professors in the world. I'm in favor of students shouldering atleast some of the cost of running labs, etc. But lets be honest with each other - Universities and Research bodies make more money off patents and intellectual properties and less off the steady stream of student fees.

But I do not understand the behavior of making more and more money off universities. I understand Harvard, Stanford, etc. use their funds to finance startups, but 25 billion?? Please, let us not fall into the trap that will end up denying a large population of college education, just because Mr. CEO is facing a shortage of code monkeys.

And what about the justification that subsidies must only exist in basic education ? I would rather pay an education cess that goes on to empower a large section of the populace in, say Bihar, to strengthen our society and democracy as a whole. People like me will be found and nurtured, with a countrywide talent search drives and by interacting with quality professors/educators, and less by liberalising our education.

We may have lesser funkier labs than MIT, but I had in my classroom poor students who would shine in their academics and help us fellow students along. That should always be the spirit of education - the Gurukul way ... an inherently Indian way.

How then shall we get the labs that are a must for technological leaps? The same way that the US does them - encourage intellectual property discoveries and patents and let the University share in the profits. But a very important difference is - plough back the profits into education, not an investment bankers portfolio.

I have been short of posts these past few weeks - and this is why.As of December 1'st, I gave up my position as Lead Engineer in Atrenta and am now a Member of Technical Staff at Calypto Design Systems.I had a fabulous two and half years at Atrenta and I felt it was time to work on something new. I think it will be cool - with its small bohemian location in the heart of Noida and a closely knit group of hardcore developers.

Lets see what rabbit I can pull out of my hat!![UPDATE]I did not, or rather did not have the heart to write a lot, the last time. Atrenta has been very good to me for the last two and a half years that I have been there. I am proud of my project - Constraints and how it has made a difference to the design process.I have worked with (and made many fabulous friends) across three continents and it was a great experience. Moving to Calypto has always been about the cool stuff that they are doing and how I will have a great time working there.That's that....

A comment by A.G.Lafley, CEO of Proctor and Gamble, set me thinking. In my workplace, I have tried to cultivate people, who as part of my team have shown promise.It is not always the case that I can recognise the gleam. Frequently, people are still in college mode or are not driven - probably as a result of the babu syndrome. They believe that they would eventually get there by means of seniority.I think it is important to follow a two-step approach:

Shock and awe them with what you can do: you have to prove your capability as a leader, not only in leading and managing, but also in actual execution.

The Talk: This is when you gently but firmly hold a mirror in front of them - show them how they can be even better and really shine.

I think one of the most important qualites to have whilst doing the above is candidness. If a bloke is an ass, call him an ass. But show him how you were an ass once and you fought for what you wanted to become.It has worked for me. I think, atleast I like to think, that I have groomed people to be better than what they started with and faster than they would have done on their own.A fine legacy, I believe.

New York Times announced a few minutes ago that Ben Bernanke would be succeeding Pope Greenspan as the Federal Reserve Chairman.Bernanke is famous for his helicopter drop governance principle. In his speech in 2002, he has interesting viewpoints on deflationary recession.Deflation is a side-effect of drop in consumer spending, and therefore demand. In response to falling demand, producers have no choice but to reduce prices to ramp-up sales. This deflation of prices eats at profit and operating margins of producers, thereby affecting the unemployment rate, industrial growth, etc.In response to deflation, a country's financial regulatory authority usually decreases interest rates - to promote spending and to encourage citizens to look for alternative investment areas.

But the concept that was way too cool was - nominal interest rate hitting zero. In an extreme situation, nominal lending rate might hit zero, but it still might be prohibitively expensive for someone to borrow money. This is if deflation is prevalent across the entire economy causing the repayment to be made in dollars that have a purchasing power much higher than what you borrowed. (!!)Now, according to conventional wisdom, once nominal interest rate hits zero, there is further scope for the regulatory to do anything but wring their hands in despair. But Bernanke's thesis goes on to the printing-press theory.

By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services..

Therefore fueling demand. Is this just a theory?The ConspiracyIn 2003 and the first quarter of 2004, the Japanese govt. printed several trillion yen. This yen was used by the Bank of Japan to purchase US Govt securities at very low prices. Coupled with tax-cuts by the Bush administration, this led to to savings-glut led surplus turning into a spending deficit within a few years. Increased consumer spending in the US caused Asian economies to accelerate, who in turn used their dollars to settle their deficit with Japan.The circuit is complete.Is Bernanke's theory sound? I dont know.. but it sure is cool!!

Bill Burnham blogs about the VC investment process in Datapower and the happy ending.It was very interesting that sometimes VC's can gang up together and force an entrepreneur to accept funding at their terms or valuations. Even the comments section of Bill's post has one about someone who had to seek funding from out-of-area, to get a better deal.Problem is, that in case initial investors dont invest in the startup, it is a warning flag for other VC's. This way, a group of VC firms can armtwist a small company into giving it all up.I'm curious as to how the Datapower guys handled it - did they tell Mobius Capital that they were trying to look for a better deal? What was it that they gave as explanation for not accepting the original investors term sheet?